A DICHOTOMY FOR THE MACKEY BOREL STRUCTURE ILIJAS FARAH 0 1 0 Abstract. Weprovethattheequivalenceofpurestatesofaseparable 2 C*-algebra is either smooth or it continuously reduces [0,1]N/ℓ2 and it n therefore cannot be classified by countable structures. The latter was a independently proved by Kerr–Li–Pichot by using different methods. J We also give some remarks on a 1967 problem of Dixmier. 1 3 ] If E and F are Borel equivalence relations on Polish spaces X and Y, A respectively, then we say that E is Borel reducible to F (in symbols, E B ≤ O F) if there is a Borel-measurable map f: X Y such that for all x and y → . in X we have xEy if and only if f(x)Ff(y). A Borel equivalence relation h t E is smooth if it is Borel-reducible to the equality relation on some Polish a N m space. Recall that E0 is the equivalence relation on 2 defined by xE0y if and only if x(n) = y(n) for all but finitely many n. The Glimm–Effros [ dichotomy ([8]) states that a Borel equivalence relation E is either smooth 2 or E E. v 0 ≤B One of the themes of the abstract classification theory is measuring rela- 3 4 tive complexity of classification problems from mathematics (see e.g., [12]). 9 One can formalize the notion of ‘effectively classifiable by countable struc- 1 tures’ in terms of the relation and a natural Polish space of structures . B 8 based on N in a natural way. ≤In [10] Hjorth introduced the notion of tur- 0 bulence for orbit equivalence relations and proved that an orbit equivalence 9 0 relation given bya turbulentaction cannotbeeffectively classified bycount- : able structures. v i The idea that there should be a small set of Borel equivalence relations X B notclassifiable bycountable structuressuchthatforevery Borel equivalence r a relation E not classifiable by countable structures there is F such that ∈ B F E was put forward in [11] and, in a revised form, in [4]. In this note B ≤ weproveadichotomy foraclassofBorelequivalencerelationscorresponding to the spectra of C*-algebras by showing that one of the standard turbulent N orbitequivalencerelations,[0,1] /ℓ ,isBorel-reducibletoeverynon-smooth 2 spectrum. Date: January 31, 2010. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 03E15, 46L30, 22D25. Key words and phrases. Borel equivalencerelations, Mackey Borel structure. The work reported in this note was done in July 2008 while I was visiting IHES and it was presented at a mini-conference in set theory at theInstitut HenriPoincaré in July 2008. Filename: 2008g25-mackey.tex. 1 2 ILIJASFARAH States. All undefined notions from the theory of C*-algebras and more details can be found in [2] or in [5]. Consider a separable C*-algebra A. Recall that a functional φ on A is positive if it sends every positive operator in A to a positive real number. A positive functional is a state if it is of norm 1. The states form a compact convex set, and the extreme points ≤ of this set are the pure states. The space of pure states on A, denoted by P(A), equipped with the weak*-topology, is a Polish space ([14, 4.3.2]). A C*-algebra A is unital if it has the multiplicative identity. Otherwise, we define the unitization of A, A˜, the canonical unital C*-algebra that has A as a maximal ideal and such that the quotient A˜/A is isomorphic to C (see [5, Lemma 2.3]). If u is a unitary in A (or A˜) then (Adu)a = uau∗ defines an inner automorphism of A. Two pure states φ and ψ are equivalent, φ ψ, if there exists a unitary A u in A (or A˜) such that φ= ψ Adu. ∼ ◦ Theorem1. AssumeAisaseparable C*-algebra. Then iseithersmooth A ∼ or there is a continuous map Φ: [0,1]N Aˆ → such that α β ℓ if and only if Φ(α) Φ(β). 2 A − ∈ ∼ Corollary 2. Assume A is a separable C*-algebra. Then either is A ∼ smooth or it cannot be classified by countable structures. Proof. By [10] it suffices to show that a turbulent orbit equivalence relation is Borel-reducible to if is not smooth. The equivalence relation A A N ∼ ∼ [0,1] /ℓ iswell-known tobeturbulent(e.g., [11])andtheconclusionfollows 2 by Theorem 1. (cid:3) This result was independently proved in [13, Theorem 2.8] by directly showing the turbulence. As pointed out in [13, 3], it implies an analogous § result of Hjorth ([9]) on irreducible representations of discrete groups, as well as its strengthening to locally compact groups. 1. Proof of Theorem 1 Recall that the CAR (Canonical Anticommutation Relations) algebra (also know as the Fermion algebra, or M2∞) is defined as the infinite tensor product M2∞ = M2(C) nO∈N where M (C) is the algebra of 2 2 matrices. Alternatively, one may think 2 of M2∞ as the direct limit of 2n ×2n matrix algebras M2n(C) for n N. × ∈ The following analogue of the Glimm–Effros dichotomy is an immediate consequence of [6] (Notably, the key combinatorial device in the proof of [8] comes from Glimm). A DICHOTOMY FOR THE MACKEY BOREL STRUCTURE 3 Proposition 3. If A is a separable C*-algebra then exactly one of the following applies. (1) is smooth. A (2) ∼ . (cid:3) ∼M2∞ ≤B∼A We shall prove that is turbulent in the sense of Hjorth. ∼M2∞ Lemma 4. If ξ and η are unit vectors in H then (*) inf I u :u unitary in (H) and (uξ η) = 1 = 2(1 (ξ η)). {k − k B | } −| | | p Proof. Let t = (ξ η). Let ξ′ = 1 proj ξ. Then the square of the | kprojCηξk Cη left-hand side of (*) is greater than or equal to” 2 ξ ξ′ 2 = ξ 2+ ξ′ 2 (ξ (ξ η)η) = 2 2t . k − k k k k k − (ξ η) | | − | | | For let ζ be the unit vector orthogonal to ξ such that ≤ η = tξ+ 1 t2ζ − p t √1 t2 and let u be the unitary given by − − on the span of (cid:18)√1 t2 t (cid:19) − ξ and ζ and identity on its orthogonal complement. Then uξ = η and a straightforward computation gives I u 2 = 2 2t as required. (cid:3) k − k − If ξ is a unit vector in a Hilbert space then by ω we denote the vector ξ m state a (aξ ξ). If ξ is a unit vector in H for 1 i m then ξ = ξ is a unit7→vecto|r in Hi= mi=1ξi and ωξ is aivector≤sta≤te on B(H). Ni=1 i N Lemma 5. If H is a Hilbert space and ξ ,η are unit vectors in H for i i i i 1 i m then ≤ ≤ inf{kI −uk : u unitary and ωNmi=1ξi = ωNmi=1ηi ◦Adu} m = 2 2(1 (ξ η )). q − i=1| i| i | Q Proof. The case when m = 1 follows from Lemma 4 and the fact that ω = ξ m m m ω when α = 1. Since ( ξ η ) = (ξ η ), the general case isαaξn imme|di|ate consequenNcei=o1f Lie|mNmi=a14.i Qi=1 i| i (cid:3) Theorem 6. There is a continuous map Φ: (−π2, π2)N → P(M2∞) such that for all α~ and β~ in the domain we have (α β )2 < Φ(α~) Φ(β~). n− n ∞ ⇔ ∼M2∞ Xn Proof. ConsiderthestandardrepresentationofM (C)onC2. Thenthepure 2 states of M (C) are of the form ω for α ( π, π). 2 (cosα,sinα) ∈ −2 2 Let Φ(α~) = ∞n=1ω(cosαn,sinαn). Thismap is continuous: If a ∈ M2∞ and ε> 0, fix m anNd a′ M2m such that a a′ < ε/2. Then Φ(α~)(a′) depends ∈ k − k only on α for j m, and in a continuous fashion. j ≤ 4 ILIJASFARAH Recallthatfor0 < t < 1wehave ∞ t > 0ifandonlyif ∞ (1 t ) < j j=1 j j=1 − j . Therefore Q P ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ α β (α β )2 < sin2 n − n < cos(α β ) > 1. n n n n − ∞ ⇔ (cid:18) 2 (cid:19) ∞ ⇔ − nX=1 nX=1 nY=1 Assume ∞n=1cos(αn−βn) > 0. Inthen-thcopy of M2 in M2∞ = ∞n=1M2 pick a unQitary un such that N 1 u < 2(1 cos(α β )) n n n k − k −| − | p and u (cosα ,sinα ) = (cosβ ,sinβ ). Note that n n n n n ((cosα ,sinα )(cosβ ,sinβ )) = cos(α β ). n n n n n n | − Let v = n u . Then v for n N form a Cauchy sequence, because n j=1 j n ∈ n v v N= v (1 u ) and therefore m− m+n m − j=m+1 j N v v < 2(1 ∞ cos(α β )). k m− nk − j=m j − j q Q Let v M2∞ be the limit of this Cauchy sequence. Since for each m and ∈ a M2m we have Φ(α~)(a) = Φ(β~)(vnavn∗) for any n m, we have Φ(α~) = ∈ ≥ Φ(β~) Adv. ◦ Now assume Φ(α~) Φ(β~) and, for the sake of obtaining a contradic- tion, that ∞n=1cos(α∼nM−2∞βn) = 0. There is m and a unitary u ∈ M2m such that Q 1 Φ(α~) Φ(β~) Adu < . k − ◦ k 2 (by e.g., [6]). However, we can find n > m large enough so that with ξ = n (cosα ,sinα ) and η = n (cosβ ,sinβ ) the quantity n j=m j j n j=m j j N N n (ξ η ) = cos(α β ) n n j j | − jY=m is as close to zero as desired. Then ω ω is as close to 2 as desired, k ξn − ηnk since a = proj proj has norm close to 1 and ω (a ) is close to 1 while ωn (a ) isCcξnlo−se to Cη1n. ξn n (cid:3) ηn n − Proof of Theorem 1. Assume is not smooth. The conclusion follows by A Glimm’s Proposition 3 and Th∼eorem 6. (cid:3) 2. Concluding remarks We note that the class of equivalence relations corresponding to spectra of C*-algebras is restrictive in another sense. The following proposition was probably well-known (cf. [9, Corollary 1.3]). Proposition 7. If A is a separable C*-algebra then the relation φ ψ on A P(A) is F . ∼ σ A DICHOTOMY FOR THE MACKEY BOREL STRUCTURE 5 Proof. By replacing A with its unitization if necessary we may assume A is unital. Fix a countable dense set in the unitary group of A and a U countable dense set in A . We claim that ≤1 D φ ψ ( u )( a )φ(a) ψ(uau∗) < 1. A ∼ ⇔ ∃ ∈ U ∀ ∈ D | − | Assume φ ψ and fix v such that φ = ψ Adv. If u is such that A ∼ ◦ ∈ U v u < 1/2 then k − k ψ(uau∗ vav∗) = ψ((u v)au∗ va(u∗ v∗)) < 1 | − | | − − − | for all a A . ≤1 ∈ Now assume u is such that φ(a) ψ(uau∗) <1 for all a . Then φ ψ Adu <∈2 Uand by [7] we h|ave φ− ψ. | ∈ D (cid:3) A k − ◦ k ∼ ForaHilbertspaceH by (H)wedenotethealgebraofitsboundedlinear B operators. Let π : A (H ) and π : A (H ) berepresentations of A. 1 1 2 2 → B → B We say π and π are (unitarily) equivalent and write π π if there is a 1 2 1 2 ∼ Hilbert space isomorphism u: H H such that the diagram 1 2 → (H ) zzπzz1zzzzBz<< 1 A DDπDD2DDDDD"" (cid:15)(cid:15) Adu Adu(a) = uau∗ (H ) 2 B commutes. A representation of A on some Hilbert space H is irreducible if there are no nontrivial closed subspaces of H invariant under the image of A. The spectrum of A, denoted by Aˆ, is the space of all equivalence classes of irreducible representations of A. The GNS construction associates a representation π of Atoeach state φof A(see e.g., [5, Theorem3.9]). Moreover, φ φ is pure if and only if π is irreducible ([5, Theorem 3.12]) and for pure φ states φ and φ we have that φ and φ are equivalent if and only if π 1 2 1 2 φ1 and π are equivalent ([5, Proposition 3.20]). φ2 Fix a separable C*-algebra A. Let Irr(A,H ) denote the space of ir- n reducible representations of A on a Hilbert space H of dimension n for n n N . Each Irr(A,H ) is a Polish space with respect to the weakest 0 n to∈polo∪gy{ℵma}king all functions Irr(A,H ) π (π(a)ξ η) C, for a A n ∋ 7→ | ∈ ∈ and ξ,η H , continuous. In other words, a net π converges to π if n λ ∈ and only if π (a) converges to π(a) for all a A. Since A is separable, λ ∈ each irreducible representation of A has range in a separable Hilbert space, and therefore Aˆ can be considered as a quotient space of the direct sum of Irr(A,H ) for n N . Therefore Aˆ carries a Borel structure (known n 0 ∈ ∪{ℵ } as the Mackey Borel structure) inherited from a Polish space. For type I 6 ILIJASFARAH C*-algebras (also called GCR or postliminal) this space is a standard Borel space. (All of these notions are explained in [1, 4].) § Since pure states correspond to irreducible representations, we can iden- tify the Mackey Borel structureof A with a σ-algebra of sets in Aˆ. It is easy to check that this σ-algebra consists exactly of those sets whose preimages in P(A) are Borel subsets in P(A). Glimm proved ([6], [14, 6.8]) that the Mackey Borel structure of a C*- § algebra A is smooth (i.e., isomorphic to a standard Borel space) if and only if A is a type I C*-algebra. Proposition 3 is a consequence of this result. Problem 8 (Dixmier,1967). IstheMackey Borelstructureonthespectrum of a simple separable C*-algebra always the same when it is not standard? G. Elliott generalized Glimm’s result and proved that the Mackey Borel structures of simple AF algebras are isomorphic ([3]). (A C*-algebra is an AF (approximately finite) algebra if it is a direct limit of finite-dimensional algebras.) One reformulation of Elliott’s result is that for any two simple separable AF algebras A and B there is a Borel isomorphism F: P(A) P(B) such that φ ψ if and only if F(φ) F(ψ) (see [3, 6]). Also, [→3, A B ∼ ∼ § Theorem 2] implies that if A is a simple separable AF algebra and B is a non-Type I simple separable algebra we have . A B B WiththisdefinitionthequotientstructureB∼ore≤l(P(∼A))/ isisomorphic A ∼ to the Mackey Borel structure of A. Note that is smooth exactly when A ∼ the Mackey Borel structure of A is smooth. Note that Mackey Borel structures of A and B of separable C*-algebras are isomorphic if and only if there is a Borel isomorphism f: Xˆ Xˆ such → that π π if and only if f(π ) f(π ). Hence Problem 8 is rather 1 A 2 1 B 2 ∼ ∼ close in spirit to the theory of Borel equivalence relations. N.ChristopherPhillipssuggestedmoregeneralproblemsabouttheMackey BorelstructureofsimpleseparableC*-algebras,motivatedbyhisdiscussions with Masamichi Takesaki. There are two (related) kinds of questions: Can one do anything sensible, and, from the point of view of logic, how bad is the problem? Problem 9. Does the complexity of the Mackey Borel structureof a simple separable C*-algebra increase as one goes from nuclear C*-algebras to exact ones to ones that are not even exact? For definitions of nuclear and exact C*-algebras see e.g., [2]. Problem 10. Assume A and B are C*-algebras and is Borel-reducible A ∼ to . What does this fact imply about the relation between A and B? B ∼ References [1] W. Arveson,An invitation to C∗-algebras, Springer-Verlag, New York,1976, Gradu- ate Texts in Mathematics, No. 39. A DICHOTOMY FOR THE MACKEY BOREL STRUCTURE 7 [2] B. Blackadar, Operator algebras, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 122, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006, Theory of C∗-algebras and von Neumann algebras, Operator Algebras and Non-commutativeGeometry, III. [3] G.A.Elliott,The Mackey Borel structure onthe spectrum of an approximately finite- dimensional separable C∗-algebra, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 233 (1977), 59–68. [4] I. Farah, Basis problem for turbulent actions II: c0-equalities, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 82 (2001), 1–30. [5] I. Farah and E. Wofsey, Set theory and operator algebras, Proceedings of the Appalachian set theory workshop. http://www.math.cmu.edu/∼eschimme/Appalachian/Index.html (E. Schimmer- ling et al., ed.), to appear. [6] J. G. Glimm, On a certain class of operator algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1960), 318–340. [7] J. G. Glimm and R. V. Kadison, Unitary operators in C∗-algebras, Pacific J. Math. 10 (1960), 547–556. [8] L.A.Harrington,A.S.Kechris,andA.Louveau,AGlimm–EffrosdichotomyforBorel equivalence relations, Journal of the American Mathematical Society 4 (1990), 903– 927. [9] G.Hjorth,Non-smoothinfinitedimensionalgrouprepresentations, preprint,available at http://www.math.ucla.edu/∼greg/, 1997. [10] , Classification and orbit equivalence relations, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 75, American Mathematical Society,2000. [11] G. Hjorth and A.S. Kechris, New dichotomies for Borel equivalence relations, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 (1997), 329–346. [12] G Hjorth and A.S. Kechris, Recent developments in the theory of borel reducibility, Fundam.Math. 170 (2001), 21–52. [13] D. Kerr, H. Li, and M. Pichot, Turbulence, representations, and trace-preserving actions, Proc. London Math. Soc. (to appear). [14] Gert K. Pedersen, C∗-algebras and their automorphism groups, London Mathemat- ical Society Monographs, vol. 14, Academic Press Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers], London, 1979. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3 Matematicˇki Institut, Kneza Mihaila 34, 11000 Beograd, Serbia URL: http://www.math.yorku.ca/∼ifarah E-mail address: ifarah@mathstat.yorku.ca

A dichotomy for the Mackey Borel structure

Similar A dichotomy for the Mackey Borel structure